![]() ![]() ![]() “Walled gardens have existed for decades,” she said. Fortnite players on iOS have a variety of choices to access the game even if it is no longer available on iOS, she said. Nor did the judge buy Epic’s argument that Apple has harmed the distribution of Fortnite because of Apple’s exclusive control of the iOS App Store. “I just don’t see this as a separate and distinct product.” “I’m not particularly persuaded,” she said of the in-app payment mechanism. It also cited Apple’s in-app payment system as an example of illegal tying - when a company bundles two products together for anti-competitive gain.īut there is no tying going on with Apple’s in-app payment system, Gonzalez Rogers observed. The decision reflects Apple’s ironclad control and unlawful monopoly maintenance, Epic argued. Tens of millions of iOS users have been harmed, Epic alleged, by what it described as a retaliatory decision by Apple to remove Fortnite from the iOS App Store. Epic has alleged that Apple, through its developer rules, is abusing its tight grip on the iOS App Store to harm innovation, competition and consumers in the market for iOS app sales. Gonzalez Rogers’ pique with Epic extended to many of the company’s legal theories. “You plan very carefully on how you’re going to respond.” “When you are taking on the biggest company in the world, and you’re taking it on where you know it’s going to retaliate, you don’t lie down in the street and die,” said Epic’s attorney, Katherine Forrest. “There are a lot of people in the public who consider you guys heroes for what you guys did, but it’s still not honest.”Įpic’s attorneys acknowledged that the company breached its agreement with Apple but claimed Epic was simply refusing to comply with an anti-competitive contract, and that forcing a legal battle was part of Epic’s plan. That’s the security issue!” Gonzalez Rogers told Epic. “You did something, you lied about it by omission, by not being forthcoming. But Gonzalez Rogers said that is not the issue. Epic has countered that it is a credible business that has been on the iOS App Store for years and poses no security threat. Judge Gonzalez Rogers looked skeptically at many of Epic’s claims, explicitly telling the company several times in the hearing she was not persuaded by its arguments or its strategy.Įpic knew that it was breaching its contract with Apple when it published the update, but did it anyway, she said, accusing the company of dishonesty.Īpple has justified its app store policies partly as a way to protect consumers from security risks and malicious software. Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment. ![]() But the court clash, which was livestreamed on Zoom, offered a preview of what a jury could hear next summer, as well as a peek into the judge’s early views in the case.Įpic Games declined to comment. Monday’s arguments will not determine the final outcome of the lawsuit - only whether Gonzalez Rogers grants Epic’s request for a preliminary injunction. And, she added, she would prefer the case be tried before a jury. ![]() She also said that given her schedule, the case is not likely to go to trial until July 2021. She did not give a timeframe for a decision on the injunction. The case is considered a potentially landmark suit, one that tests the frontiers of antitrust law, said Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesĪpple's in a war for the future of the App Store. Fortnite, the hit game that's denting the stock prices of video-game makers after signing up 45 million players, didn't really take off until it became free and a free-for-all. iPhone in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, May 10, 2018. Fortnite: Battle Royale video game is displayed for a photograph on an Apple Inc. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |